DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment filed 3/27/2025 has been entered. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation “the inorganic fiber” on line 2, however, given that claim 4 depends upon claim 1 which recites “inorganic fibers” on line 4 and “an inorganic fiber base fabric” on line 6, “the inorganic fiber” of claim 4 lacks clear antecedent basis, e.g., does the limitation refer to the “inorganic fibers” present in the flame barrier insulating layer, or to the inorganic fiber of the base fabric, or both? Claim 5 similarly recites the limitation “the inorganic fiber” on line 2 and depends upon claim 1 and thus is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Dependent claim 6, which depends upon claim 5, does not remedy the above and hence is indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “high temperature liquid” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high temperature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, it is unclear as to how high a temperature the “high temperature liquid” need to be to be considered a “high temperature liquid”. Claim 14 also recites the limitation "the multiple elements" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heitkamp (USPN 5,460,864). Heitkamp discloses a high temperature composite in sheet form (as in instant claim 12) that provides 2000°F (1093.3°C) burn-through resistance (Abstract, Col. 1, lines 58-67), comprising fire barrier membranes separating honeycomb cores (Abstract), wherein the fire barrier membranes are formed from a layer of vermiculite/glass mat having a thickness of 0.005” to 0.030” (i.e., 0.127 mm to 0.762 mm) or inorganic paper having a thickness of 0.010” to 0.035” (i.e., 0.254 mm to 0.889 mm) comprising inorganic fibers and inorganic particles as recited in Col. 3, with preferred inorganic papers, EX 100V and EW 656, comprising glass fibers (Col. 3, lines 3-22; either of the vermiculite/glass mat or inorganic paper reading upon the claimed flame barrier insulating layer of instant claim 1 in which inorganic fibers having a thermal resistance temperature as claimed are entangled in a random direction, with the former reading upon instant claims 1 and 7 given that vermiculite is a layered silicate as well as a thermal insulating inorganic particle, and the latter reading upon instant claims 1 and 9 with the inorganic particles reading upon the broadly claimed “thermal insulating inorganic particle”), laminated with a layer of phenolic resin prepreg comprising a glass fiber woven cloth (reading upon the claimed “prepreg layer in which an inorganic fiber base fabric is impregnated with a semi-cured thermosetting resin” as in instant claim 1, and particularly as in instant claim 10); and given that the prepreg bonds the vermiculite/glass mat or inorganic paper to the honeycomb based upon the preferred examples recited in Col. 5, particularly as facing skins of the composite as shown in Fig. 1 (Col. 4, lines 42-66), the prepreg layer and the layer of vermiculite/glass or inorganic paper are bonded together as in instant claim 2, wherein “at least one surface of the flame barrier insulating layer corresponds to an outer surface of the flame barrier insulating laminate and wherein the surface if free of the semi-cured thermosetting resin” as in instant claim 3 (Entire document, particularly as noted above, Abstract, Fig. 1, and Col. 2-5). Hence, Heitkamp anticipates instant claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heitkamp, as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, and 12 above, and further discussed below.
The teachings of Heitkamp are discussed in detail above (and incorporated herein by reference) wherein with respect to instant claims 4-5, Heitkamp teaches that the inorganic fiber membrane composition may contain “glass, fiber and flake...mica of various types and grades, vermiculite, silicon carbide fiber, asbestos fiber, potassium titanate, soda ash, ammonium polyphosphate, aluminum trihydrate, polybenzamidazole, zinc borate, magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, red phosphorous, melamine phosphorous, zinc stannate, zinc mydroxustannate, and/or sodium or potassium silicate” (Col. 3, lines 3-14) and although Heitkamp teaches preferred inorganic papers that are known to contain glass fibers, and that a silica fiber mat, silica fiber woven fabric, and other mica types which intumesce can be used and combined with the vermiculite mica solutions or dry powder forms or films (Col. 3, lines 6, lines 31-45), Heitkamp does not specifically teach a silica content of the glass fibers as in instant claim 4 or an amorphous silica content of the silica fiber as in instant claim 5. However, given that Heitkamp does recite E glass and S glass as suitable glass fibers for the glass fabric of the prepreg layer, wherein both have a silica content of greater than 40wt% as in instant claim 4, and that standard silica fiber in a silica fiber mat or silica fiber woven fabric is known to contain more than 85% by weight of amorphous silica and naturally possess hydroxyl groups on the surface thereof (as evidenced by the attached Google Search results - AI Overview), the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, instant claims 4-6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Heitkamp, particularly given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claim 8, as discussed in detail above, Heitkamp specifically teaches a vermiculite film wherein vermiculite, i.e., a layered silicate, in flake form may be utilized to produce the vermiculite film; and also teaches that the alternative inorganic fiber membrane may contain mica (i.e., a layered silicate) of various types and grades, vermiculite, asbestos fiber (i.e., a fibrous silicate), magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, sodium silicate, potassium silicate, and other inorganic materials as recited in Col. 3, lines 3-22, and although Heitkamp does not specifically teach a fibrous clay mineral particle as instantly claimed, however, given that sepiolite, i.e., a fibrous clay layered silicate of hydrated magnesium silicate, is a known functionally equivalent inorganic material to the inorganic materials taught by Heitkamp, particularly the other layered silicate materials, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize other known layered silicate materials in any form, particularly fibrous form in the inorganic fiber membrane taught by Heitkamp given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, instant claim 8 would have been obvious over the teachings of Heitkamp.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kühneweg (US2022/0393267A1) in view of Steiner, III (US2014/0287641A1, hereinafter referred to as “Steiner”) and/or Jin (US2025/0087808A1). Kühneweg teaches a flame barrier material that may be molded to form a three-dimensional shape, particularly one that is substantially form fitting to a battery compartment component (Abstract, Paragraph 0023), wherein the flame barrier material comprises inorganic fibers, inorganic particles, and an inorganic binder (Abstract), and in some embodiments, has an average thickness between 0.1 mm and 10 mm, preferably between 0.2 mm and 5 mm (overlapping and hence rendering obvious the instantly claimed thickness range for the flame insulating layer as recited in instant claim 1). Kühneweg teaches that the flame barrier material comprising a combination of inorganic fibers and inorganic particles may be considered inorganic papers and are produced by a papermaking process and thus are nonwoven flame barrier materials (Paragraphs 0023, 0026, and 0032), wherein exemplary inorganic fibers “may be selected from the group of glass fibers e.g. (E-glass fibers, S-glass fibers, R-glass fibers, ECR-glass fibers, etc.) [reading upon the glass fiber of instant claim 4 given again that E-glass and S-glass have a silica content as claimed], basalt fibers, ceramic fibers, polycrystalline fibers, silicate fibers, alumina fibers, silica fibers [reading upon the silica fiber of instant claims 5-6 given again that silica fiber typical contains more than 85wt% amorphous silica and naturally contains hydroxyl groups on the surface thereof], carbon fibers, silicon carbide fibers, boron silicate fibers or a combination thereof” and “[m]ore specifically, the fibrous material may include annealed melt-formed ceramic fibers, sol-gel formed ceramic fibers, polycrystalline ceramic fibers, alumina-silica fibers, glass fibers, including annealed glass fibers or non-bio-persistent fibers,” wherein “[o]ther fibers are possible as well, if they withstand the high temperatures generated in a thermal event of a Li-ion battery” (Paragraph 0027), and given that Kühneweg teaches pre-conditioning example materials at 1000°C or 1200°C (Examples), Kühneweg clearly teaches a flame barrier insulating layer comprising inorganic fibers having a thermal resistance temperature of 1000°C or higher entangled in a random direction as recited in instant claim 1, and more particularly as in instant claims 4-6. Kühneweg teaches that “[s]uitable inorganic particulate fillers include, but are not limited to, glass bubbles, kaolin clay, talc, mica, calcium carbonate, alumina trihydrate, montmorillonite, smectite, bentonite, illite, chlorite, sepiolite, attapulgite, halloysite, vermiculite, laponite, rectorite, perlite, and combinations thereof” (Paragraph 0032, reading upon the broadly claimed “thermal insulating inorganic particle” of instant claim 1, as well as the layered silicate of instant claims 7-8 given that sepiolite is a naturally occurring fibrous layered clay silicate particle and that it is prima facie obviousness to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success).
Kühneweg also teaches that the flame barrier material may be an inorganic paper formed of multiple plies or sub-layers as long as the paper is sufficiently thin and has sufficient flexibility to be bent around a 3-in mandrel (Paragraphs 0023 and 0026); and can further include additional materials such as forming aids as known to those skilled in the art (Paragraph 0036). Kühneweg teaches that in some embodiments, the flame barrier material can further comprise a fire protection coating disposed on a first major surface of the flame barrier material (Paragraph 0006), wherein the fire protection coating comprises an inorganic binder and at least an inorganic filler (Paragraph 0044) and an organic binder material such as an epoxy binder and the like (e.g., a thermosetting resin) can be added to exemplary coating compositions (Paragraph 0047). Hence, with respect to the claimed invention, Kühneweg teaches a moldable flame barrier insulating material comprising at least one flame barrier insulating layer having a thickness as instantly claimed in which inorganic fibers having a thermal resistance temperature as instantly claimed are entangled in a random direction and further includes a thermal insulating inorganic particle as in instant claim 1, and more particularly as in instant claims 4-9, and although Kühneweg provides a clear teaching that the barrier material may be formed of multiple plies or layers, and may further comprise a coating including a thermosetting resin applied to a surface thereof wherein it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the coating may penetrate or impregnate pores in the inorganic paper and/or that the thermosetting resin would be in a cured state in the final shaped article, particularly given that Kühneweg teaches that the material is shaped by heat and pressure (Paragraph 0039), Kühneweg does not specifically teach that the flame barrier material comprises a “prepreg layer” or sheet in which an inorganic fiber base fabric is impregnated with a semi-cured thermosetting resin as instantly claimed.
However, each of Jin and Steiner (Entire documents, particularly Abstract, Figures, and Claims) teaches a similar heat/flame resistant composite material that may be molded and may be utilized in batteries, e.g., as in Kühneweg (Jin: Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraphs 0061-0065; Steiner: Abstract; Paragraphs 0045, 0081, 0115, 0118-0119, Examples) wherein the composite material may include a prepreg layer, e.g., a woven or nonwoven fabric layer impregnated with thermosetting resin, bonded with an insulating layer of nonwoven material or layer comprising inorganic fibers entangled in a random direction and/or inorganic particles such as silica aerogel (as in instant claims 1-2 and 10; Jin: Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0010-0011; Steiner: Entire document, particularly Abstract, Paragraph 0048), in various layer configurations based upon the intended end use including with an outer layer that is not the prepreg layer (hence reading upon and/or suggesting a surface that is “free of the semi-cured thermosetting resin” as in instant claim 3), with both teaching similar thicknesses as in Kühneweg and the claimed invention (Jin: Paragraphs 0027, 0224, 0228, 0270, and 0285; Steiner: Paragraph 0095, 0101, 0132, Examples), specifically with Jin teaching a fiber layer(s) that may be a woven or nonwoven material and may be impregnated with resin that may be a phenolic resin or phenolic modified epoxy resin (as in instant claim 10; Paragraphs 0036, 0179, 0181-0185), while Steiner teaches that suitable resins for impregnating or binding layers containing fibers may include thermosets such as epoxies and phenolics (as in instant claim 10; Paragraphs 0069-0071). Hence, given that each of Steiner and Jin are of the same field of endeavor as Kühneweg, with each teaching inorganic fibers and particles as in Kühneweg, as well as prepreg layer(s) comprising phenolic resin that may be bonded with nonwoven insulating layers to produce a heat/flame resistant laminate for use in batteries as in Kühneweg, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any of the layers taught by Steiner and/or Jin as an additional layer or ply in the invention taught by Kühneweg to further improve thermal and/or mechanical properties thereof based upon the intended end use given that it is prima facie obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Hence, absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 1-10 and 12 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kühneweg in view of Jin and/or Steiner.
With respect to instant claims 13-14, in addition to the above, Kühneweg teaches that the flame barrier material may be wrapped around a flammable energy storage device, such as lithium ion battery cells, modules, or packs, or can be placed between cells, and can be provided in any desired three-dimensional shape based upon the intended end use of the flame barrier material (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0049-0050), and given that Kühneweg does not limit the shape or battery end use, the Examiner takes the position that absent any clear showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 13-14 would have been obvious over the teachings of Kühneweg in view of Jin and/or Steiner, particularly given that the claimed structures are typical battery structures in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights